Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, January 30, 2016

The Evo Sith will argue from their worldview, we get that. Many are committed to naturalism, and reject any possibility that they are accountable to our Creator. Recent creation? Global Genesis Flood? Easier to teach a sidewinder to herd cats than to get many of these folks to even consider the possibilities.When they rely on evolutionary thinking, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they hide cards and deal from the bottom of the deck to not only promote their own careers, but to convince people that their paradigm is pristine and proper. It's survival of the fittest, isn't it? We shouldn't be surprised at all the storytelling and outright bad science used in the promotion of evolutionism, nor should be be surprised when fraud is involved. (Many people say that Piltdown Man was a "hoax", but I insist it was a fraud, and fooled many people for about 40 years.) But aren't scientists above such unconscionable acts? Not hardly! They're sinful humans in need of the Redeemer, just like the rest of us.Here is a series of four articles by Tom Shipley that are worth your attention.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Advocates of molecules-to-machinist evolution can cook up some mighty convincing stories about why and how evolution happened, but they leave out important information and talk about what happened in the distant past without any real evidence. What they come up with are comparable to Kipling's Just So Stories. They sound good, but do not have plausible mechanisms or explanations. And yet, true believers accept them by faith.

Regular readers know that I have featured material by Dr. David Coppedge's "Creation-Evolution Headlines" on this site many times. (Here's another: he has some personal anecdotes in an interesting article called "Secret Animal Hideouts".) Bob Enyart interviewed Dr. Coppedge on Real Science Radio, and they discussed several evolutionary stories, and touched on biomimetics, design, and more. You can listen to or download the podcast by clicking on "crev.info headlines on RSR with David Coppedge". The picture below shows you what to click on from there. Speaking of clicking, you can click on the image for a larger version.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Every once in a while, biblical creationists will be told something like, "Even if you disproved evolution, I would still be an atheist because evolution is not all that important to me". The indoctrination was strong in this one. Similarly, some will say that they do not need evolution because they have other reasons to reject the Creator. (Interestingly, they betray themselves by coming to creation science sites, groups, Pages, and so forth to tell us that they do not care.) But they must care, because there are only two possibilities to answer the question of origins.

One tinhorn stated that atheists reach their conclusions because they thought things out, and Christians do not do this. His claim was a logical fallacy. In reality, atheists are driven by emotion and faith commitments to their disbelief, and if they had bothered to use critical thinking, they would realize that their worldview is irrational and incoherent, lacking the intelligibility that is only found in the biblical Christian worldview.

In a response to our article, “The hardest ones to reach …”—which looked at the influence of evolutionary/atheistic teaching throughout the education system—a reader’s comment reflects how impactful such indoctrination is.In pointing out that casting doubts on such things as soft tissue findings would not persuade her, Meg W., wrote:

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been holed up down at Horsethief Canyon, telling tales around the campfire. This one's a doozy. A study was undertaken involving the differences between the brains of humans and chimpanzees, and they reached the conclusion that humans evolved the ability to evolve. Of course, no mention was made of how neuroplasticity in human infants was planned by our Creator.

Infant chimps develop more rapidly than human infants — and then their genetic makeup hollers, "Whoa!" Humans continue to develop and the changes are influenced by environment as well as genetics. But we are designed to develop further than our alleged evolutionary cousins. While the study was good while it stayed with operational, observable science, when the owlhoots began to make pronouncements about what happened in the distant past, that stuff left science and entered the realm of campfire stories.

Chimpanzees, living in the 2037 world imagined by science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, have been reclassified as Homo and granted full rights as persons. An evolutionary worldview—the belief that humans and chimps are close cousins evolved from a common ancestor—is the basis of this fiction. Yet even in that fictional future, as now, chimps and humans differ radically in behavior and intelligence. If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, how did humans get their bigger, better brains? Enquiring evolutionary minds want to know!Evolutionists comparing chimp and human brains think they’ve found the answer. And while they have found physical manifestations of the unique, highly adaptive nature of the human brain, to claim they’ve answered the evolutionary question of its origin is another thing entirely. Nevertheless, their study is quite interesting for those amazed at the potential of a helpless human baby to quickly grow into a bright and clever child. Moreover, they shed light on how identical twins differ.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Microbes-to-man evolutionists stack the deck with a passel of their favorite cards when it comes to reasoning about origins. Of course, they presume that evolution is a given. Add in the excuse that something in the genome is not understood, so they assume that it's leftover from our evolutionary past. When the cards are dealt, they think they have a winning hand. Not hardly! We were created, not evolved, and the evidence supports this fact.

The tale of evolving from a common ancestor to an egg layer to a placental mammal is problematic in the first place, then they assume that there must be traces of our egg-layer ancestry in our DNA. There was a study a while back that where some hands at the Darwin Ranch thought they found vitellogenins in our DNA; a pseudogene remnant. To the credit of the main evolutionary community, that was doubtful and not widespread. (The theistic evolution science-and-Scripture-twisters, BioLogos, spread that fiction anyway.) So, what is this vtg, anyway? A creationist science did the research.

The grand evolutionary story claims that egg-laying creatures share a common ancestry with placental mammals. Non-mammalian vertebrates, such as birds and reptiles, lay eggs with nutritional reserves in the egg yolk to nourish the growing embryo inside. In contrast, the embryos of placental mammals are nourished through the placenta, a specialized organ attached to the uterine wall of the mother. Placental mammals are born alive and do not hatch from eggs.The supposed transition from an egg-laying reproductive system to a placenta-based system is notoriously difficult for evolutionists to explain. In egg-laying creatures, a class of proteins called vitellogenins (vtg) plays a key role in either transporting or providing the nutritional substrate for proteins, lipids, phosphorous, and calcium in relation to formation of the egg yolk. It is believed that somehow during the course of evolution, the role of vtg proteins was replaced by the placental interface for nourishment during gestation and, after birth, by the mother’s lactation. Based on this idea, some evolutionists believe that mammalian genomes contain DNA remnants of their ancient egg-laying past.

Monday, January 25, 2016

We know full well that the nature of science is to explore through various means and increase in knowledge. Ideally, theories and models are modified if needed, or even discarded. The more we learn, the more there is to learn — but even when data conflicts with secular worldviews, the worldviews prevail. Astronomy and space exploration show this extremely well.Remember when there were seven planets in this solar system? Of course you don't, the eighth planet, Neptune, was officially noted in 1846. Pluto became the ninth planet in 1930, but with bigger and better telescopes, it was downgraded to "dwarf planet" status in 2006. Once Pluto was "visited", scientists were surprised. This is right in keeping with the way other members of our solar system were shown to be active, not acting as old as secularists expected them to be.There's a heap of evidence against the Big Bang, but it's constantly cobbled and patched together to keep going. After all, we can't admit that there's a Creator, now, can me? That would allow a divine foot in the door; das ist streng verboten. There are stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, superclusters lighting up the big skies. And they were moving. A "Great Attractor" was proposed to explain their motion, but that fell out of favor. More galaxies have been discovered, and our Milky Way is mapped in a supercluster according to "Collective Evolution". Also, Nature discusses the galaxies and superclusters, clinging to the Big Bang and citing the fiction that unobserved "dark matter" is observed. They just kinda slip that in there to keep the sheep docile.

Image of supernova 2005am taken by Swift Ultraviolet/Optical TelescopeImage credit: NASA, who would in no wise endorse this content.

The most spectacular supernova ever detected has astrophysicists scratching their heads for a mechanism.Type 1a supernovas (or supernovae to geeks) are pretty well characterized. Theory says that when material from a binary companion flows onto a white dwarf, it will explode when it reaches a critical mass with a flash that should be about the same in all cases. That allows them to be used as a “standard candle” for measuring distances in space. It’s the standard story, at least, although there are problems.But then there are supernovas that are off the charts. So-called “superluminous supernovae” require a different explanation. One theory for these much brighter explosions is that they come from magnetars—neutron stars with exceptionally strong magnetic fields, quadrillions of times stronger than the one surrounding Earth. One theory suggests that energy from the magnetar impacts the expanding supernova remnant from which it formed, brightening it substantially.That theory has now come into doubt with the discovery of ASASSN-15lh, a supernova that was so bright, it didn’t even fit into the scale of 1 to 10:

To brighten your day, read the rest by clicking on "Small Thing Make Big Boom". It's humbling, even to those of us who know our Creator on a first-name basis.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, January 23, 2016

If I had a notion to type <a href="http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/p/question-evolution-day.html"><b>Question Evolution Day</b></a>, most people would pay it no nevermind, though many would recognize it as HTML coding. In this text portion of the Weblog, it's only a curiosity and has little function. Putting it where it belongs, you see this link in bold type: Question Evolution Day.Similarly, Samuel F.B. Morse came up with the first binary code that traveled over the "singing wires" of telegraph lines. Someone who knew that code would send messages to a a clerk who would decode them for the intended recipient. Savvy Native Americans as well as outlaws on the run would cut the lines to hinder communications so town folk couldn't call for help.

Languages are complex codes, and anyone with a lick of sense can understand that the words on this site, the HTML coding, the languages that we use in our interpersonal communications, are all the products of design. Amazingly, materialists think that language evolved, and our brains that designed languages are nothing more than neurochemical reactions. DNA is a language with intricate specified complexity. It makes heaps of sense to the recipients in living organisms, but not so much to those of us on the outside.

The presence of coded information systems inside living things is a perplexing conundrum for materialists. Biblical creationists of course see it as yet another example of how science supports belief in the Creator God of the Bible. Evolutionary scenarios of how symbolic language could arise through a naturalistic process must attempt to explain their origin without a mind. But is this reasonable based on what we know scientifically (observationally/experimentally) about coded information?. . .In an atheistic evolutionist’s worldview there is no mind that created, just random genetic mutation guided by natural selection. The problem is that genetic mutation is the result of spelling mistakes within an already existing and replicating genetic code and natural selection can only ‘select’ preferential genetic information from within that pre-existing system. Neither of these processes can account for the origin of any symbolic coded language system themselves.Here are three observations confirmed by science showing why coded genetic information cannot be the result of a ‘no mind’ process …

Friday, January 22, 2016

People in northern latitudes are usually well acquainted with snow, whether the Rocky Mountains, Washington, Michigan, New York, Alberta, Siberia, or wherever. We've seen it coming down hard and heavy, with heaps of it making things downright unsafe to head out to work, especially late in January. Turn this upside down, and areas in the southern hemisphere get snow, just ask the penguins and people in some parts of Australia, for instance (at the right time of year). To see actual crystals is something we may not stop to ponder, but individual snow flakes are quite a wonder.

Studying individual snowflakes led to the field of crystallography. Scientists are puzzled as to why water molecules are programmed to have six sides, and why there are over eighty basic types of snow crystals. What does this have to do with evolution? In a way, not a whole lot, because there is no organized complexity. But an evolutionary universe makes science impossible, since there is no reason for consistency in the laws of science — even the snow crystals testify to this.

Cloaked in the mid-winter darkness, John quickly made his way across the Charles Bridge to the newer residential section of town. His destination was on the opposite side of the river from downtown Prague and the castle. He was running late for the New Year’s Eve party. To make things worse, the shops were closed where he might have purchased a gift for the host, his patron who had paid for his scientific research over the past year.As he passed under one of the lamps on the bridge, he noticed snow had begun falling lightly. Small, individual snow crystals were collecting on the dark fleece of his jacket. He stopped abruptly and watched with fascination as one geometric shape after another fell onto the arm of his coat. Their designs glowed brilliantly in the flickering light from the lamp above. Here was a small hexagon; there a featherlike pattern; a third, the shape of a star. Yet each crystal had six corners.Never before had John taken the time to investigate individual snow crystals. Normally in snowstorms a dozen or more crystals would fall jumbled together in a large snowflake so he couldn’t discern the individual crystals. But tonight they fell individually. The air was probably so cold and the snow falling so lightly that they didn’t clump together. As John studied the various shapes and sizes, an idea began to form—he would explain why snow crystals all had six corners and present his thoughts to his patron as a gift!

Thursday, January 21, 2016

One complaint that is raised against biblical creationists is that we're wasting our time dealing with a biological theory, but evolution is much more than that. Not only does it rely on various scientific fields, it is also a philosophy of life. This is ironic, since evolution is based on death. Evolutionary thinking has given us social applications of Darwinian principles in tyrants like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and others. This, in turn, is based on eugenics, where the unfit are disallowed to reproduce — and are eliminated.

The social Darwinism "science" of eugenics was popular in the United States, but fell out of favor when Adolph Hitler used it in his quest for power. However, eugenics never really disappeared. Eugenics has been used under different names, and is regaining popularity again. The worst way is the evolutionary eugenics is used to justify abortion. Taking the view that God created humans in his image gives a radically different (and life affirming) worldview.

Western society’s eugenics disaster of the early 20th century sought to weed out the “unfit”—people seen as genetically dragging the human race down. It flowed from a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. The U.S. Supreme Court punctuated this blunder with the Buck v. Bell decision (1927) that effectively legalized eugenics practices. Though eugenics became widely stigmatized by the 1970s, a captivating fitness-survival-death mindset has endured. These death-fueled practices haven’t missed a step following the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) decision that legalized abortion, the new eugenics.
The Eugenics-Abortion LinkEarly eugenicists won a scientific consensus by using a few strategies. They established peer review to secure credibility, abused peer review to monopolize control, crowned “experts” to project authority, and marginalized dissenters to enforce compliance. Though the public found forced sterilization distasteful, recent research by social scientists Deborah Barrett and Charles Kurzman reveal how eugenicists perpetuated their practices right under society’s nose. They document how eugenics-driven peer review continued by merely renaming the existing periodicals. The Annals of Eugenics transitioned to the Annals of Human Genetics, The Eugenics Review conveniently became The Journal of Biosocial Science, and The Eugenical News/Eugenical Quarterly morphed into Social Biology.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

So, if a creature has no heartbeat, not breathing, is frozen solid, what is the likely medical opinion?"He's dead, Jim."Not necessarily. Some critters have been endowed by their Creator with certain ways of surviving in extreme cold. Why not? They have been enabled to adapt, else we'd have a much larger number of extinctions going on. A spell back, I posted about the "antifreeze" in the Eastern box turtle. There are also some frogs that have similar abilities.

The wood frog baffles atoms-to-amphibian evolutionists. Although certain times of year are just what a frog would cotton to, what with insects and all. But when the temperatures go below zero and it turns into a frogsicle, well, how does it survive?

During winter in Alaska, the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) freezes so that it looks like a frog-shaped piece of ice. While frozen, the frog stops breathing, its heart stops beating, its blood stops flowing, and it cannot move. However, when spring arrives, the frog’s body thaws and the frog returns to normal life. This is an amazing feat that would certainly be highly unlikely to have developed by chance. To restart the function of the frog’s systems after they have been frozen requires extremely complex genetic programming.The adult wood frog, which grows to be only about 8 cm (3 inches) long, has an unusual colouration on its face that makes it look like it is wearing a black mask. The frog lives in Canada and also in the United States from Alaska to Alabama. In Alaska, wood frogs inhabit diverse environments, from grasslands to forests, muskegs and tundra. The wood frog is one of only three species of frogs that live north of the Arctic Circle.As an amphibian, it is a cold-blooded animal whose body temperature tends to match the temperature of its surroundings.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Every once in a while, a Conservative radio talk show host will compile sound clips where newscasters and pundits are using the same key words on the same story. I'm not going into political stuff here, this is just a handy example: In 2007, George W. Bush was criticized for needing gravitas, a word that doesn't exactly appear in common speech, and Rush Limbaugh showed how it was suddenly popular on that one topic. This seems to be the way things are done — including the evolutionary propaganda media.

We have enough problems when scientists make pronouncements of their opinions as if they had done rigorous research, came to valid conclusions, and can support their claims, but were only giving opinions instead. It gets worse when the biased owlhoots who are looking for sensational stories get mighty rambunctious with their stories, all the while singing in harmony. The whole thing turns into a goat rodeo.

Then, people who want to believe in enzyme-to-editor evolution will believe this stuff and have their unfounded faith strengthened. People need to challenge them — Cindy Lou illustrates the "where does it say that?" approach. This makes it more difficult to get through to them that God created the world recently, and we are accountable to him.

Science reporting is a global racket that uncritically propagates nonsense with the imprimatur of science.Many in academia are concerned about unscientific ideas that go viral in social media. Perhaps they should set a better example themselves. Pure speculations that are demonstrably unempirical are published daily by Big Science and Big Media, with no rebuttals or caveats.Here’s how it works: a “scientist” or “researcher” gets a wacky idea that cannot be proved. Because they wear the honorable label of “scientist,” their opinions have presumptive authority. Their institutions (universities or labs), eager to promote what a great job their staff scientists are doing, enjoy opportunities to highlight their work. Each institution has a public relations department that is always looking for new promotional material. Their expertise is in watering down the “findings” for a lay audience, gathering quotes as needed, adding a catchy headline and some artwork or photos. The PR office then puts the feed out until the journal paper is about to arrive, labeling it “embargoed” for the Big Media reporters until the Big Day. This gives reporters in Big Media time to tweak the press release with their own headline and wording. When the Big Day arrives, the embargo is lifted, and all the Big Media reporters come out with the same “news” almost simultaneously, using the same artwork, but with their own particular wording and headlines. Other Small Media reporters quickly copy the story uncritically, and it goes viral.

Monday, January 18, 2016

Another example of evolutionary storytelling is with the alleged evolution of birds. Our fine feathered friends (except at 4 AM on a summer day when I'm trying to sleep in, I don't cotton to that) have been puzzling for bacteria-to-bobolink evolutionists for quite a spell now. Still, they come up with some interesting stories. Not so much science though, that needs evidence and that kind of thing.

Naturally, the "dinosaurs evolved into birds" presupposition is invoked, and other circular reasoning. They also tend to overlook important data and still make unsustainable triumphant proclamations. They still can't change the truth: God created birds and everything else with variety and adaptability, and he did it recently.

A recent press release from the National Science Foundation claims that the “big bang” of bird evolution has been mapped, revealing the history and origin of birds, feathers, flight, and song. But do the genomes really “tell a story” as the NSF news release claims? The data can be interpreted within the evolutionary paradigm that assumes universal common ancestry, although many of the stories seem quite incredible. Realistically, if the assumptions are wrong, these conclusions are likely to be wrong as well. The same data is easily interpreted within a biblical framework, which points to an awesome Creator who has cared for birds in some amazing ways.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

For many years, the claim that humans and chimpanzees were extremely similar in DNA was proclaimed by the Evo Sith as a kind of secularist gospel truth. The degree of similarity varied, depending on who you talked to, sometimes as high as 98-99 percent. When this icon of evolutionism was checked and found to be lacking, the science involved seemed to be largely ignored and the "fact" was still spread around.

When creationist scientist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins re-evaluated the data, he came up with a much smaller similarity. Then the jungle erupted with screams of simians denying the results. However, I was contacted by computer programmer Glenn Williamson who updated me on the results obtained by Dr. Tomkins. At first, I was mighty suspicious, since I get a passel of hassle from tinhorns who want to dismiss creation science material out of hand. Mr. Williamson furnished me with useful links.

It turns out that the software that Tomkins used was defective. He has since gone back to work on the DNA comparisons with three programs and obtained higher numbers than he had before, but still lower than the percentages of human-chimp DNA similarity claimed by evolutionists.

Interestingly, people are focusing on this DNA similarity aspect. But that is not all there is to the story, because there are obviously marked differences between humans and chimps, and those need to be taken into account as well. Tomkins is planning on publishing new information on the DNA research soon.

Friday, January 15, 2016

Evolutionists are finding that research is bad medicine for their fungus-to-florist notions. We've read a right fair amount of material showing how soft tissues in dinosaur bones cannot be as old as evolutionists want them to be, and there are other problems with deep time geology that don't fit the observed evidence, so they commence to storytelling to force the evidence into their story. There's another problem, too.

Seeds have been found that they say are "remarkably preserved". Considering the detail involved, they'd best reconsider and deal with the facts: there's no way these seeds are as old as fundamentally flawed dating methods make them out to be. The Earth was created recently, and evidence keeps on affirming that fact.

Hundreds of flowering plant seeds from early Cretaceous strata on two continents show exceptional preservation; how can they be 125 million years old?A paper in Nature reports another example of “exceptional preservation” of biological material, this time of plant seeds. The seeds were found in Portugal and in the eastern United States. They contain embryos and nutritive material, the paper says, yet are thought to be 125 to 110 million years old, the time in the evolutionary story when angiosperms (flowering plants) were rapidly diversifying. Here are some quotes from the paper:

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Have you ever watched a bee come in for a landing? Most of us don't pay it no nevermind, but keep an eye out next time and think about pilots of aircraft. It's tricky enough for them to land on a flat surface, and worse on an incline. Bees land on all sorts of inclines, and you don't see them have crash landings.

Scientists, many of whom believe that bees and other critters are the products of time, chance, random processes and other evolutionary fables, are looking into intelligently designing biomimetics applications for human use. The bee's brain has a guidance system that was designed by the Creator, not by evolution. That should be obvious.

Landing safely is a difficult aspect of flight, because the rate of approach must be reduced to near zero at touchdown.This is hard enough on horizontal surfaces, but even more challenging as inclination increases, i.e. when landing on surfaces of different orientation. Yet honey bees achieve this easily, hundreds of times per day.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Biblical creationists and other Christians often have to deal with prejudicial conjectures from uninformed owlhoots such as, "The Bible is full of fairy tales, and there is no support from archaeology! We believe in science, even though there is no scientific support for our creation myth. And Genesis is the worst!" Or something like that. If these people had bothered to do a mite of research, they wouldn't cotton to making fools of themselves so quickly, would they?

Although stating that there is no archaeological evidence to support Genesis is an argument from silence and therefore invalid, it's also untrue. The more archaeologists work, the more Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) is supported; Genesis is a valid historical record. You dig?

With so many loud voices in our culture asserting that Genesis is a myth, one would think archaeologists have uncovered clear evidence that refutes it. On the contrary, some incredible archaeological finds confirm key events in Genesis.In the 1970s, archaeologists discovered tablets made before 2000 B.C. at Ebla in northern Syria. Among them were found creation tablets that say, “Lord of heaven and earth: / The earth was not, you created it; / The light of day was not, you created it.”Cylinder seals are tiny stone rollers with carved three-dimensional reverse images that the ancients would roll across wet clay to impress picture patterns onto the clay before baking it in a kiln. One of the oldest seals shows a seated woman reaching for one of two fruits hanging from a tree. A man also reaches for fruit opposite her, and behind her a serpent slithers. It has every key element from the Fall of man found in Genesis 3.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Some secular geologists are claiming that the Coconino Sandstone refutes Genesis Flood geology because there is no way that it could have been formed under water. Interestingly, geologists hang their hats on uniformitarian geology despite the numerous problems with their own hypotheses. So, what's going on?

The problem is that the geologists only gave superficial examinations before they came up with their myths. Once again, creationists have to do the heavy lifting and refute their refutations.

When creationists suggest that a worldwide Flood deposited all the layers in the Grand Canyon, secular geologists laugh. “That can’t be,” they say, “because one of the canyon’s major layers was formed in a desert over millions of years. It’s filled with fossilized sand dunes, which are windblown deposits that have hardened into stone. You can’t deposit desert sands during a global flood!”The Coconino Sandstone (Figure 1a), whose buff-colored sand piles up as thick as 300 feet (90 m) in the Grand Canyon area and 1,000 feet (300 m) in other areas, is one of the most common evidences raised against the Genesis Flood. The arguments sound pretty compelling. So nearly a decade ago, I joined a team of creation geologists in an unprecedented research project to examine the claims firsthand, including dozens of field trips and careful laboratory work.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Someone left a fact-free, faith-filled comment at The Question Evolution Project regarding a post about a thigh bone in the "wrong place" that threatened evolutionary paradigms:

Welcome to science. We are learning new things all the time. Mistakes can be made but it doesn't disprove the theory.

Looks like this owlhoot is out of touch with his own belief system (that seems to happen a lot). Later, when I told him that evolutionists have a habid of discarding facts they don't like, he added this:

Facts are not discarded. If evidence arrives that challenges theories then answers are found or theories change. That's what science is about. But just because a bone is found somewhere calling into question current theories surrounding ancient human history it just means more research needs to be done to get more accurate information.

Looks like he didn't bother to read the whole thing (a common occurrence). If he had bothered, he'd realize that scientists are saying that this has profound implications for fungus-to-fanatic evolution. In this case, the evidence is on the table, yet people don't want to cognate on it. It's easier to believe the tales that are told from scientists.

Problem is, evidence does not support evolution, as creationists are pointing out frequently (this site alone has hundreds of instance listed, and creationist sites have thousands of problems with evolution documented). Far too often, Darwinistas dance around the evidence and tell tales that have no basis in science — or reality. If they were honest with themselves (and us), they'd admit that evolution is flawed, and the evidence supports creation.We get a passel of stories from evolutionists that are fit for fascinating children. Unfortunately, these storytellers are pretending that what they have is actual science. Not hardly! Evolutionary paleoanthropologist John Hawks caught Michael Shermer in some storytelling about the Homo naledi bones; the skeptic was not being skeptical about this stuff. Scientists are trying to explain away the soft tissues in dinosaur bones. Great ape Gigantopithecus is extinct, and evolutionary tall tales are brought up as "explanations". A tiny bird skeleton that is placed, according to Darwinian years, close to the time of dinosaur extinction, is accommodated with rapid evolution. Wait, what...? We thought that evolution took a long time. Guess it doesn't when the story needs evolution to move fast. The elasmosaur may have had a "filter feeding" mechanism, but how it evolved is anyone's guess.To read about the above evolutionary fictions, I lassoed two links for you. Click on "Separating Old Bones from Living Storytellers" and also "New Fossils, Old Stories".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, January 9, 2016

by Cowboy Bob SorensenAs you can tell from the title, this here article is a continuation. To see Part 1, click here. I hope you do, so this makes more sense to you.Many times, we get comments from atheists on the prod who claim to be "former Christians" (sometimes claiming they were Christians for many years), and then proceed to show little knowledge of the Christian faith. Often, it is because atheists are notorious liars (as I have shown several times before, especially with this one). Often, people think they are Christians because they were raised in a church-going home, or because they're not Mohammedans, Buddhists, or something else, so "Christian" is a kind of default position for them. (One atheist who claims to be a former Christian was raised in the Christadelphian cult; he's not a used-to-be, he's a never-was.) But these alleged former Christians display little knowledge of the faith and the gospel message.

Betcha thought I was done with Dr. James White since I referred to him in the first part, but I have something very important to share from him. "Christian" Brit rapper Jahaziel has actively renounced the faith and posted many reasons — I mean, excuses — for doing so. He even used the Zeitgeist video, something that has been soundly debunked but still used by the uninformed to fuel their hatred of God. His excuses for rebelling against God are typical of people who prefer prejudicial conjecture to actual information. I strongly recommend that you watch (or download the MP3) Dr. White's episode of the Dividing Line, "They Went Out from Us: Jahaziel’s Excuses for Abandoning the Faith". This illustrates the way many people "think" and are motivated by emotions rather than reason, especially when it comes to inane "reasons" for rejecting Christ.

We definitely need to know Scripture! However, we also need to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Evolutionary propaganda creates stumbling blocks for people coming to Christ. Evidence alone is insufficient, because this is a spiritual problem and not intellectual, but we need to be able to show that there are answers available. God's Word is true and can be trusted in all things.
The main reason I started to write this article was to show how anti-creationists misrepresent not only biblical creation science, but lack understanding of their own worldviews. In addition, many who claim to be former Christians were never really part of us (1 John 2:19). However, I have to take lazy Christians to task as well. Sure, some want to defend the faith and show that evolutionism is scientifically and rationally bankrupt, but that won't happen if we don't learn our own worldviews. We also have to get edjamakated about where the other side is coming from. Don't let an atheist or evolutionist make a monkey out of you. The Christian life is not a party (despite what Joel Osteen may tell you); it takes work and perseverance. Standing up for the authority of Scripture and the truth of science, beginning in Genesis, is also difficult, and the world hates us for it (2 Tim. 3:12, John 15:18-20). One reason I'm here, and many other ministries exist, is to equip the saints to defend the faith. Time to saddle up and ride for the brand, old son.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, January 8, 2016

by Cowboy Bob SorensenThings were surprisingly quiet at The Question Evolution Project over Christmas. But New Year's Day and afterward, some owlhoots from the Darwin Ranch rode over, full of beans and ready to slap leather. (From the quality of their comments, they had too much firewater during their celebrations and weren't ready to deal with polite society yet.) Fortunately, their comments were helpful resources for writing this article, and I saved a heap of screenshots.

One of these troublemakers had a wagon load of assertions based on his presuppositions, but was jawing about nothing rooted in fact. I'll omit his insistence on using the irrational, disingenuous redefinition of atheism as "lack of belief" and stick with the evolutionism comments:

Evolution is directly predicated on the scientific method. To state otherwise is illogical. It requires peer review and falsifiable evidence, like all scientific disciplines.

It's directly predicated on the scientific method? No, evolutionism is an ancient religion, and people who believe in philosophical and methodological naturalism latch onto it as an explanation of origins for people who want to justify their rejection of God the Creator. Also, the "scientific method" is a process or tool for interpreting evidence — depending on which "scientific method" is chosen."To state otherwise is illogical". An attempt at intimidation for people who would disagree with him.Peer review? Yeah, sure. I told him, "Peer review has been shown to be a massive failure in the "good ol' boys club", with numerous recalled papers (including some that have passed that were entirely computer generated). You'd better start examining the actual evidence instead of arguing from your fundamentally flawed presuppositions." Secular peer review is agenda driven, and has serious problems, see "Sacred Cows and Herd Mentality".After another comment containing a link to the real definition of atheism, he came back with another series of erroneous assertions:

Conspiracy theory is irrelevant. Evolution is directly predicated on the scientific method. It isn't a belief system. That's like stating that gravity is a belief a system. No belief in deities is not a redefinition. Atheism is inherently that, no belief in deities. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. Belief is irrelevant to the evolutionary theory. Being religious or nonreligious doesn't affect evolution whatsoever.

I don't recollect why he was talking about conspiracy theories. His insistence that evolution has nothing to do with belief is absurd, since everyone has a worldview by which they interpret evidence (see "Who is REALLY at War with Science, Creationists or Darwinists?") Richard Lewontin and George Wald are two of several scientists who admit that they have a commitment to naturalism, which means that they will not consider that the evidence points to God. He came back later with some other fool's gold, including this:

Let's try this slowly. Evolution has nil to do with a belief system. Unless you disregard peer-review as a necessity of the scientific method, then you're not concerned with scientific evidence, you're concerned with your belief system being "true", to the exclusion of evidence otherwise.

Can'tcha just hear the sneer? He stays with his affirmations, and elevates peer review to a magisterial level, demonstrating his blind faith in secular science and his ignorance of the problems that scientists admit exist in the peer review process. Then we see a straw man argument and an appeal to motive fallacy, wrapped up in a subtle ad hominem attack.Moving on to another:

I won't be goaded into a debate with a brick wall.
I'll leave with this: if there are 100 scientists in a room and 99 of them agree on something then that is a scientific consensus. If you then take the one scientist who disagrees on the subject and put him in a debate against another single scientist then you create the appearance of a "controversy". To the ignorant observer it would appear as though both arguments where equally validated 50/50.
This is why a serious scientist debating a creationist is dangerous. By taking on the debate it adds credibility to baseless claims and furthers the myth of controversy.
I'll not respond to this any further for the same reasons.
You seem slightly desperate and unhinged. Also possibly very young although I can't be certain. Good luck to you and your mission here. While you may gets some pats on the back from your immediate community, over time you will be increasingly marginalized by society at large as a fool. Perhaps you can then play it off as being a martyr for your beliefs? Who knows. In the meantime keep up the good work on this and your Bigfoot websites.
Good day to you.

Amazing. He beings with the insult that someone commenting is a "brick wall", and then proceeds to make a lengthy comment anyway. Makes perfect sense. Actually, none of it make sense. He appeals to consensus, which is ridiculous because scientific truth is not decided by majority rule; asserting consensus is a faulty appeal to authority as well. Scientific consensus has been wrong before, and will be wrong again. He is very sneaky, using loaded terminology, ad hominems (by the way, those are required in the Atheist Handbook™), bifurcation ("to the ignorant observer", implying that intelligent observers will agree with him), appeal to motive, appeal to ridicule, genetic fallacy, prejudicial conjecture, and more. Good thing he is not in a position of authority in a scientific institution, as science needs challenge, not protection through misrepresentation and ridicule of contrary viewpoints.Here is someone else unclear on the concept:

Excellent thesis and data collection but lousy application ( attempting to apply it to evolution) small scale evolution has been observed and repeated, for an example: go out for a box of kfc. A typical chicken takes 6 months to reach full size. In 1900 there was little variation from that. Broiler chickens have been specifically bred to mature in only 9 weeks. Yes we humans were the motivation for this change but this is still a massive and observable change in the chickens biology. Another example is the aquarium trade. Many if not most of the fish at your petstore come from a wild version that is much more plainly colored. We have directed their evolution aka selective breeding, to produce what we want. Anyone who can look at all of the mounting evidence and just blow it off in favor of an invisible man IS in fact a science denier.

Analyzing this one is actually trickier than it looks. He decided to throw down and start shooting, but at the wrong target. He's talking about variations and a little about speciation (creationists agree that speciation happens), and then committing equivocation; we see variations, so fungus-to-fishmonger evolution must be true. Not hardly! The stuff he's carping about is really a red herring stuffed in equivocation and mounted on the wall as incontrovertible fact.Interestingly, none of those in the Darwin Ranch troll invasion resorted to reflexively saying, "You're a liar!" whenever someone disagreed with them, or showed when it was stated that Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy is deceptive. Some people resort to emotional manipulations (such as calling someone a liar) instead of realizing that people have differing interpretations of evidence. But I digress.What we have here is far too common among anti-creationists. They want to challenge us, but disunderstand the philosophy and methodology of science, have blind faith that evolution is true (but do not understand it), have no grasp of logic, plus lots of emotion and enthusiasm to disseminate their propaganda.They also show not only ignorance of what creationists believe, but unwillingness to learn what it is. Dr. James White recently commented on The Dividing Line that when people want to enter into debates, they should do their research and understand the other side's position. Interestingly enough, vehement misotheist Bill Maher did his homework on differences between Christianity and Islam, and wouldn't let Charlie Rose get away with prejudicial conjecture. That's a notable exception to the way other misotheists and anti-creationists act.Although some of these people claim that we are "debating" which is inaccurate, having a serious discussion and disagreement with someone else should entail learning how to accurately understand and present their position, and show respect for them as people. Creationists need to remember that anti-creationists and atheists are lost sinners in need of repentance, but are still created in the image of God.

This is fun, but we've all got other things to do. However, if you've a mind to read it, Part 2 is here.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!